Author Topic: Has Ancestry broken the adjacent counties setting?  (Read 1271 times)

Offline melba_schmelba

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,854
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Has Ancestry broken the adjacent counties setting?
« on: Monday 07 April 25 12:28 BST (UK) »
Just trying to do some searches for baptisms and marriages in Middlesex and adjacent counties, comes up with Lancashire, Cheshire, Hampshire  :o >:(. So searching for a common name is now absolutely useless ::).

Offline melba_schmelba

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,854
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Has Ancestry broken the adjacent counties setting?
« Reply #1 on: Monday 07 April 25 21:26 BST (UK) »
Now trying to specify any county, seems to trigger endless errors "We’re sorry, this page is no longer available.", is anyone else getting this ???? To explain clearly

going to
Birth, Marriage & Death, including Parish

entering a name and date, enter nothing in the Location box - you get results

entering a name and date, enter a county in the Location box - you get repeated

"We’re sorry, this page is no longer available."



Offline bearkat

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 7,841
    • View Profile
Re: Has Ancestry broken the adjacent counties setting?
« Reply #2 on: Monday 07 April 25 21:50 BST (UK) »
I think Ancestry is just 'broken' this evening.
Middx - VAUS, ROBERTS, EVERSFIELD, INMAN, STAR, HOLBECK, WYATT, BICKFORD, SMITH, REDWOOD
Hants - SMALL, HAMMERTON, GRIST, FRYER, TRODD, DAGWELL, PARKER, WOODFORD, CROUTEAR, BECK, BENDELL, KEEPING, HARDING, BULL
Kent - BAYLY, BORER, MITCHELL, PLANE, VERNON, FARRANCE, CHAPMAN, MEDHURST, LOMAX, WYATT, IDEN
Devon - TOPE, BICKFORD, FOSTER
YKS - QUIRK, McGUIRE, BENN
Nott/Derbs - SLACK
Herts - BARNES
L'pool- PLUMBE
 All UK census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline Cas (stallc)

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 6,992
    • View Profile
Re: Has Ancestry broken the adjacent counties setting?
« Reply #3 on: Monday 07 April 25 21:53 BST (UK) »
Same for the last 2 hrs, unable to get into census..but seems ok now.  Apologies banner up while they worked on it, has gone for the mo.

Cas
Census information is Crown Copyright www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Squire/Thomas/Williams/Bowen/Lewis/Davies/Jones/Rees/Morgan/Lloyd - Glamorgan
Lewis/Davies - Breckonshire
Davies/Roderick - Myddfai Carms
Thackwell/Thomas - Hereford/Monmouthshire
Shoemac/Squire/Keirle/Small - Somerset
Berry/Baggot/Lee/Clayton - Lancs
Yelland/Bray/Trethewey - Cornwall
Baggot/Hurley/Keaveny/Shiel/Flynn - Ireland


Offline melba_schmelba

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,854
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Has Ancestry broken the adjacent counties setting?
« Reply #4 on: Tuesday 08 April 25 11:17 BST (UK) »
Thanks both, still getting random errors, but the adjacent counties search setting is still universally broken - it seems to almost return ALL counties if you select the 'County and adjacent counties' option.

Offline Cas (stallc)

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 6,992
    • View Profile
Re: Has Ancestry broken the adjacent counties setting?
« Reply #5 on: Thursday 10 April 25 19:29 BST (UK) »
Is any still getting probs with Ancestry. It has not been right since this thread started.

Now and again it gives..

We’re sorry, this page is no longer available.

Have to go back a page and try again, or go in through historical records

A right pain...
Census information is Crown Copyright www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Squire/Thomas/Williams/Bowen/Lewis/Davies/Jones/Rees/Morgan/Lloyd - Glamorgan
Lewis/Davies - Breckonshire
Davies/Roderick - Myddfai Carms
Thackwell/Thomas - Hereford/Monmouthshire
Shoemac/Squire/Keirle/Small - Somerset
Berry/Baggot/Lee/Clayton - Lancs
Yelland/Bray/Trethewey - Cornwall
Baggot/Hurley/Keaveny/Shiel/Flynn - Ireland

Offline melba_schmelba

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,854
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Has Ancestry broken the adjacent counties setting?
« Reply #6 on: Thursday 10 April 25 20:59 BST (UK) »
Is any still getting probs with Ancestry. It has not been right since this thread started.

Now and again it gives..

We’re sorry, this page is no longer available.

Have to go back a page and try again, or go in through historical records

A right pain...
Yes, been getting them all day, keep having to reload which sometimes works, sometimes not, very annoying!! Not sure what they broke, but it seems rather critical  ???. Pretty unbelievable when you look at the profits of this company and the executive pay, the website operation and reliability is seeming to get worse and worse by the year ::).

Offline Gillg

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,759
    • View Profile
Re: Has Ancestry broken the adjacent counties setting?
« Reply #7 on: Friday 11 April 25 14:24 BST (UK) »
And of course county boundaries have changed over the years, so, for example, my father, born in south Lancashire, is now shown as having been born in Cheshire!  For a proud Lancastrian that's an insult.  Relatives living in North Lancs were transposed into Cumbria. I was born in Rochdale which is now shown as being in Greater Mancester. >:(  It doesn't help with the searching.
Census information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

FAIREY/FAIRY/FAREY/FEARY, LAWSON, CHURCH, BENSON, HALSTEAD from Easton, Ellington, Eynesbury, Gt Catworth, Huntingdon, Spaldwick, Hunts;  Burnley, Lancs;  New Zealand, Australia & US.

HURST, BOLTON,  BUTTERWORTH, ADAMSON, WILD, MCIVOR from Milnrow, Newhey, Oldham & Rochdale, Lancs., Scotland.

Offline melba_schmelba

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,854
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Has Ancestry broken the adjacent counties setting?
« Reply #8 on: Friday 11 April 25 14:40 BST (UK) »
Issues still not fixed, getting constant errors  >:(.